Re: [vibration] Returning false if vibration hardware is not present?

I think we should figure out what is involved with the PER and if truly lightweight, go for it, to mitigate the concern that the errata are not read.

Lets see what Dom has to say when he has a chance.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Chair, W3C Device APIs WG (DAP)

www.fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch

> On Feb 3, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 03 Feb 2016, at 14:39, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Charles
>> 
>> Thanks, looks like we have a way forward with PER. We should make sure there are no other errata before proceeding (and of course agree on this one).
> 
> If we can publish a Proposed Edited Recommendation without excess process hoops then that'd be great.
> 
> Would the following work as an alternative to PER: update the Editor's Draft, link to the ED spec and HTML diff from errata.
> 
> Regarding other errata:
> 
> Since the Vibration API Rec'd, the Page Visibility spec added a "steps to determine if the document is hidden" [2] hook, so we should align with that (caveat: the Page Visibility spec with this hook is still ED).
> 
> In practice, the step 3 in processing vibration patterns [1] would be changed from:
> 
> [[
> 
> If the hidden attribute [PAGE-VISIBILITY] is set to true, then return false and terminate these steps.
> 
> ]]
> 
> Into:
> 
> [[
> 
> If the result of running the steps to "determine if the document is hidden" [PAGE-VISIBILITY] is true, then return false and terminate these steps.
> 
> ]]
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Anssi
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/vibration/#dfn-processing-vibration-patterns
> [2] https://w3c.github.io/page-visibility/#dfn-steps-to-determine-if-the-document-is-hidden

Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2016 13:55:51 UTC